| Title |
Possibility for reverse zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to free-ranging wildlife: A case study of bats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Pathogens, September 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008758 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin J Olival, Paul M Cryan, Brian R Amman, Ralph S Baric, David S Blehert, Cara E Brook, Charles H Calisher, Kevin T Castle, Jeremy T H Coleman, Peter Daszak, Jonathan H Epstein, Hume Field, Winifred F Frick, Amy T Gilbert, David T S Hayman, Hon S Ip, William B Karesh, Christine K Johnson, Rebekah C Kading, Tigga Kingston, Jeffrey M Lorch, Ian H Mendenhall, Alison J Peel, Kendra L Phelps, Raina K Plowright, DeeAnn M Reeder, Jonathan D Reichard, Jonathan M Sleeman, Daniel G Streicker, Jonathan S Towner, Lin-Fa Wang |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 209 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 47 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 13 | 6% |
| Australia | 12 | 6% |
| Spain | 6 | 3% |
| France | 4 | 2% |
| Canada | 4 | 2% |
| Portugal | 4 | 2% |
| Brazil | 3 | 1% |
| Peru | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 28 | 13% |
| Unknown | 85 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 130 | 62% |
| Scientists | 58 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 11 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 4% |
| Unknown | 2 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 315 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 315 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 54 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 9% |
| Other | 24 | 8% |
| Other | 53 | 17% |
| Unknown | 94 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 70 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 24 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 52 | 17% |
| Unknown | 101 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 188. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2023.
All research outputs
#216,707
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Pathogens
#136
of 9,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,670
of 426,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Pathogens
#6
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,549 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.